In 2010 for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. For the five-year period 2006 through 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, gunswere used in 44 criminal homicides.

Looks like the simpletons from the VPC used the same mathematical techniques that I used. Therefore, in 2010, for every person killed by a gun that wasn't a suicide, 6 people used guns to defend themselves. How does it feel to have no legs Lt. Dan?

In 2010 for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. For the five-year period 2006 through 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, gunswere used in 44 criminal homicides.

Looks like the simpletons from the VPC used the same mathematical techniques that I used. Therefore, in 2010, for every person killed by a gun that wasn't a suicide, 6 people used guns to defend themselves. How does it feel to have no legs Lt. Dan?

Gee, I don't know Tin Man, how does it feel to have no heart?

And you're the Scarecrow, too, because it's looking like you ain't got no brain. You got your math wrong again... idiot. In fact, you got it backwards (kinda like your thinking.)

Assuming that the 2010 justifiable homicides are self-defense. what the VPC actually said was that for every one of those, there were 36 other people who were murdered. And, as you so considerately pointed out, when you look at a wider sample, that number actually goes up to 44.

What you are saying is that the life of the ONE person that used a gun to defend themselves is somehow more important (or has more value) than those other 36 - 44.

You wanna 'splain that one Benny? Regardless, you oughta sue whoever you paid money to for your education, 'cause you was swindled.

Again, you're not using the same logic as you did with the guy in the coma.

In 2010 for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. For the five-year period 2006 through 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, gunswere used in 44 criminal homicides.

Looks like the simpletons from the VPC used the same mathematical techniques that I used. Therefore, in 2010, for every person killed by a gun that wasn't a suicide, 6 people used guns to defend themselves. How does it feel to have no legs Lt. Dan?

Gee, I don't know Tin Man, how does it feel to have no heart?

And you're the Scarecrow, too, because it's looking like you ain't got no brain. You got your math wrong again... idiot. In fact, you got it backwards (kinda like your thinking.)

Assuming that the 2010 justifiable homicides are self-defense. what the VPC actually said was that for every one of those, there were 36 other people who were murdered. And, as you so considerately pointed out, when you look at a wider sample, that number actually goes up to 44.

What you are saying is that the life of the ONE person that used a gun to defend themselves is somehow more important (or has more value) than those other 36 - 44.

You wanna 'splain that one Benny? Regardless, you oughta sue whoever you paid money to for your education, 'cause you was swindled.

Again, you're not using the same logic as you did with the guy in the coma.

I'll give you one thing, you're as inconsistent as the day is long.

Thank you for proving how stupid you really are. I really do appreciate you making this easy on me. No matter how many times you change my name in the qoutes, or change the fonts, you are always going to be as dumb as are you at this moment.

I never used the number of justifiable homicide in my calculations, because, wait for it...

defending yourself with a firearm isn't just about killing the other person. If you look at the table in the VPC study, you will see how many times on average (67,740) a person used a firearm to defend themselves from some type of crime. Only using the numbers of justifiable homicides to determine whether or not a gun was successful in preventing a crime is liberal logic, which is why you always fall short. So again, for every person that dies by murder or accident with a gun, there are approximately 6 people who have defended themselves from a crime using a gun.

The only reason I used that quote above was to show that my math is consistent with the researchers.

You know, it absolutely astounds me (although it shouldn't) that you can read a study from the Violence Policy Center and use it as justification for guns, when what the actual study says is...

Introduction

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.How Often are Guns Used in Self-Defense Whether or Not a Criminal is Killed?

While it is clear that guns are rarely used to justifiably kill criminals, an obvious question remains: How often are guns used in self- defense whether or not a criminal is killed?

Pro-gun advocates—from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Rifle Association—frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States. According to the 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health by Dr. David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the “most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.”

In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million number from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self- defense claims for firearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassification that is well known to medical epidemiologists.”

Comparing NCVS Data to Claims that Guns are Used in Self-Defense 2.5 Million Times a Year

Using the NCVS numbers, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same five-year period guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense (applying to the five-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim, noted earlier, that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year).

Conclusion

The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.7 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2010 the persons shot were known to the shooter.

The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false.

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

Again (as the report said), arguments like yours don't take into account the thousands of suicides and accidental shootings that could be prevented each year if guns were not so prevalent.

You fail (refuse) to consider that if there were fewer guns on the street, then we'd reduce both the number of dead and the number who need to use a gun for protection. As the report pointed out, "data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010."

That's 1,162,000 guns during that five-year period now illegally on the street because owners didn't have them properly secured. We could safely add close to another million since then. And of course, since we don't have a registry (like we do with cars) we can't track those guns and tell if they turn up used in a crime. Heaven forbid! That would be such a burden on those law abiding citizens. Oh, wait! I forgot your paranoid fear of confiscation.

Oh yeah, and as for your math, like the study said, the claims of self-defense are a "vast overestimate," but for the sake of argument, I'll let you have the claim of 67,740. Let's compare that to the 32,000 dead and the 73,000+ that are injured (not claims or estimates, by the way - real numbers).

What you're still saying is that those 67,740 people have more right to life and well-being than those 105,000. Again, your inconsistent logic is showing.

Only a bullet headed idiot such as yourself could twist this report into support for guns.

You know, it absolutely astounds me (although it shouldn't) that you can read a study from the Violence Policy Center and use it as justification for guns, when what the actual study says is...

Introduction

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.How Often are Guns Used in Self-Defense Whether or Not a Criminal is Killed?

While it is clear that guns are rarely used to justifiably kill criminals, an obvious question remains: How often are guns used in self- defense whether or not a criminal is killed?

Pro-gun advocates—from individual gun owners to organizations like the National Rifle Association—frequently claim that guns are used up to 2.5 million times each year in self-defense in the United States. According to the 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health by Dr. David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year. This estimate is not plausible and has been nominated as the “most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official.”

In his book, Hemenway dissects the 2.5 million number from a variety of angles and, by extension, the NRA’s own non-lethal self- defense claims for firearms. He concludes, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate” and asks, “But what can account for it?” As he details in his book, the main culprit is the “telescoping and...false positive problem” that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, “a matter of misclassification that is well known to medical epidemiologists.”

Comparing NCVS Data to Claims that Guns are Used in Self-Defense 2.5 Million Times a Year

Using the NCVS numbers, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same five-year period guns were used 12.5 million times in self-defense (applying to the five-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim, noted earlier, that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times a year).

Conclusion

The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.7 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2010 the persons shot were known to the shooter.

The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false.

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

Again (as the report said), arguments like yours don't take into account the thousands of suicides and accidental shootings that could be prevented each year if guns were not so prevalent.

You fail (refuse) to consider that if there were fewer guns on the street, then we'd reduce both the number of dead and the number who need to use a gun for protection. As the report pointed out, "data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010."

That's 1,162,000 guns during that five-year period now illegally on the street because owners didn't have them properly secured. We could safely add close to another million since then. And of course, since we don't have a registry (like we do with cars) we can't track those guns and tell if they turn up used in a crime. Heaven forbid! That would be such a burden on those law abiding citizens. Oh, wait! I forgot your paranoid fear of confiscation.

Oh yeah, and as for your math, like the study said, the claims of self-defense are a "vast overestimate," but for the sake of argument, I'll let you have the claim of 67,740. Let's compare that to the 32,000 dead and the 73,000+ that are injured (not claims or estimates, by the way - real numbers).

What you're still saying is that those 67,740 people have more right to life and well-being than those 105,000. Again, your inconsistent logic is showing.

Only a bullet headed idiot such as yourself could twist this report into support for guns.

Oh man, you really can get dumber can't you.

It's no secret that the VPC is anti-gun, it really shows in this excerpt that you posted.

It asks the question

How Often are Guns Used in Self-Defense Whether or Not a Criminal is Killed?

After a lot of talk about the NRA's estimate to try and belittle the actual number (who knows if its actual since they are biased as well) of times they have been used, they give us 338,700 over a 5 year period or 67,740/yr. What it doesn't compare it to, is the number of deaths each year by firearms. I wonder why? Isn't that the whole argument, deaths by firearms vs argument of guns used for self defense? If they do, it makes their position weak, so instead, they throw the number in only to talk about the NRA number and then finish with more rhetoric about justifiable homicides. I know you don't have the capability to use critical thinking skills to be able to see and extract this information, but I'm here to help.

Best part of the passage...

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

If they think that's rare, I wonder how they feel about the total number of firearm deaths (including suicides) being less than half that amount?

Number of deaths by firearm from 2010: 31,672Number of instances in which a firearms was used in self defense: 67,740

For every death, 2.14 lives are possibly saved.

Removing suicides from the equation, for every death, 5.62 lives are possibly saved.

I didn't make the numbers, hell, neither did a conservative organization. Those are liberal reported numbers that were just used to show that you are an idiot who swallows all the kool-aid fed to you. Just imagine if you could think for yourself...

You fail (refuse) to consider that if there were fewer guns on the street, then we'd reduce both the number of dead and the number who need to use a gun for protection.

And the fact that you continue to subtract suicides from the calculation of the lives that might be saved (as if these folks deserved to die) is once again an illustration of why you're such a douche bag a-hole.

So go **** yourself Benny. You're a despicable human being and you've displayed that here for the world to see. You think you can twist the numbers to make you look smart (or try to make me look dumb) but the reality is that you're a racist, selfish, libertarian jerk who doesn't give a **** about anybody but you and yours. You think you have the right to decide who gets to live and die based on economic calculation, but you fail to employ that same logic when considering the loss incurred by gun violence. So we should add "inconsistent" to your descriptors.

You think you're smarter than Dahlia Lithwick, David Hemenway and the rest of the Harvard School of Public Health, plus thousands of climate scientists. You may think you're a bad ****, but the rest of the world sees you for what you are: a walking punchline to a bad joke.

But even so, I have to thank you. Because it's tea bagger ****-wipes like you that are dragging the Republican party so far to the right that it's something that the majority of America (at least the parts that haven't been gerrymandered) will continue to reject for years to come.

You fail (refuse) to consider that if there were fewer guns on the street, then we'd reduce both the number of dead and the number who need to use a gun for protection.

And the fact that you continue to subtract suicides from the calculation of the lives that might be saved (as if these folks deserved to die) is once again an illustration of why you're such a douche bag a-hole.

So go **** yourself Benny. You're a despicable human being and you've displayed that here for the world to see. You think you can twist the numbers to make you look smart (or try to make me look dumb) but the reality is that you're a racist, selfish, libertarian jerk who doesn't give a **** about anybody but you and yours. You think you have the right to decide who gets to live and die based on economic calculation, but you fail to employ that same logic when considering the loss incurred by gun violence. So we should add "inconsistent" to your descriptors.

You think you're smarter than Dahlia Lithwick, David Hemenway and the rest of the Harvard School of Public Health, plus thousands of climate scientists. You may think you're a bad ****, but the rest of the world sees you for what you are: a walking punchline to a bad joke.

But even so, I have to thank you. Because it's tea bagger ****-wipes like you that are dragging the Republican party so far to the right that it's something that the majority of America (at least the parts that haven't been gerrymandered) will continue to reject for years to come.

And that gives me a warm feeling inside.

You could have just said that I was right and you were pissed, but whatever. I always enjoy making you look stupid and pathetic.